The Obama administration is considering the possibility of removing all U.S. troops in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission officially finishes at the end of 2014, White House officials said Tuesday.

The comments by Ben Rhodes, the White House's deputy national security adviser, come as the Pentagon and White House mull over the number of troops that could be left in Afghanistan after 2014 to fight insurgents and train Afghan security forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and President Obama are scheduled to meet on Friday in Washington.

Rhodes said the administration is considering a range of options, with one scenario having no U.S. troops there. The range, according to defense officials, had until recently been between 6,000 to 15,000 U.S. troops possibly remaining in the country, based on an assessment by the U.S. top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen.

"We have an objective of making sure there's no safe haven for al Qaeda within Afghanistan and making sure that the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient, again, to assure the stability of the Afghan government and the denial of that safe haven," Rhodes said.

"That's what causes us to look for different potential troop numbers or not having potential troops in the country," he continued.

Rhodes said there were no expectations on any deal on post-2014 troop levels during the Karzai visit, and he said it could be months before any decision was made.

The White House remains committed to ensuring Afghanistan does not return to its status as a safe haven for Al Qaeda, Rhodes said

The comments here are so discouraging.
I begged for help here back n 2008-09 to show my home front effort to discourage enemy soldiers.
Trying to come back on, but I keep reading I am not back long enough to send mail here.
Anyway, please if anyone is reading this who wants to help our soldiers on the ground by showing the enemy Americans never abandoned our soldiers, but instead were blocked from helping them win through home front efforts due to the campaigns for the 2006 elections, help me. I am an expert on the matter. No one will stand against those despicable campaigns. Everyone caved and assumed associating with efforts to help win the war meant more election defeats.
I cannot send private mail yet. But hopefully someone sees this article, and my comment, and wants to discourage enemy morale. I just need a little help to show what I have done trying to counter the effects of the 2005-06 campaigns. Someone please who reads this, who wants to discourage enemy soldiers, help those like me who have tried to use efforts like in World War II against the enemy. Enemy soldiers have fought with the highest morale possible since those sick campaigns. Please help me counter it, finally.

Gutless leftist policies strike again. So much for always being ready for war, as Washington admonished we should be, never mind actually fighting instead of being ordered not to criticize the Taliban blah blah blah.

So where are the generals that will fight for the USA instead of worrying about fawning before the weak leaders of this country?

If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the rulers bidding.

The current POTUS is the same one that criticized the surge in Iraq back when a senator and had no reply when the success of same was thrown in his face. Agreeing with him over withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan is shaming the success of that surge, AFAIAC.

Gutless leftist policies strike again. So much for always being ready for war, as Washington admonished we should be, never mind actually fighting instead of being ordered not to criticize the Taliban blah blah blah.

Remember when we went in guns a-blazing back in 2001, with hopes of a resounding victory against the Taliban and al-Qaida? My, how things have changed in 11+ years...

26
posted on 01/09/2013 6:13:12 AM PST
by ScottinVA
(More dizzying than a Tilt-a-Whirl is an around-a-circle argument with a liberal about gun control.)

A lot of people have spent years calling for a total war or a total withdraw. Only one of those choices is possibly, and even those who wanted to believe the other choice could happen have come to the realization it can't by this point.

A lot of people have spent years calling for a total war or a total withdraw. Only one of those choices is possibly, and even those who wanted to believe the other choice could happen have come to the realization it can't by this point.

Yes radio. Not allowed on. People still fear triggering a replay of the campaigns for the 2006 elections. In World War II, if you had a way to help win the war by doing something in the home front, a way to discourage enemy soldiers, I assume you had a hundred places to take it and help get it implemented. Since 2006 there is literally nowhere to go in America for this. You are only allowed to comfort the soldiers and thank them. Those efforts dont challenge the campaigns for the 2006 elections. They dont say the war should have been fought. I can go to at least fifty places easily if I want to send the troops care packages. I can go nowhere to help them win.
But if I get to show what I did, I open the door for everyone like me. No one has opened that door for me since 2006. I assume I have to do it myself.
Meanwhile, enemy soldiers are ecstatic to take the battlefield, since they see zero efforts from the American home front to defeat them. I want them demoralized. I want American soldiers facing enemy soldiers who question why they are fighting, rather than certain they will soon win. I want enemy soldiers driven to desert. I am barred from trying to bring this about, all due to fear the 2006 elections might occur again and sweep in more candidates who oppose the war.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.